Search for: "Cork v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 112
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Apr 2007, 3:14 pm
NUI Cork T/A Cork University Press [2000] IEHC 70 and Sweeney v. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 2:28 am
Champagne corks may have been popping in Chancery Lane last night, but the success of the Law Society in its challenge to the Legal Services Commission’s family tender process is no more than a small victory in a war that cannot be won.As the UK Human Rights Blog states, the decision "may only serve to delay the inevitable ... with the system of legal aid under enormous budgetary pressure". [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 8:11 am by Susan I. Nelson
Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., Individually and as Successor to Mundet Cork Corporation, Respondent. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 6:54 am by Robert Fuller
Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown Cork & Seal v. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 7:25 am by Joel R. Brandes
On June 16, 2013, E. left Kinsale, County Cork, Ireland with Respondent for a summer visit to the United States. [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 2:13 am
Today the United Kingdom's Court of Appeal (Civil Division) released its judgment in AS & DD v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which concerned the lawfulness of the deportation of the applicant to Libya, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with the proposed receiving state. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 5:28 am by Brian Cordery
The Court referred here to the well-known UK authority in Hallen v Brabantia where it was held that a patent to a PTFE coated cork-screw was obvious because it was obvious that the PTFE coating would achieve betting penetration of the corkscrew into the cork, and the fact that it unexpectedly achieved an improvement to the pulling of the cork would not found a valid patent; (x) In relation to dosage regimen patents, the Court reiterated that there is no blanket… [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 3:37 pm by
The concept stems from the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 3:12 pm by Oliver Gayner, Olswang
  In NML Capital v Argentina, the question for the Supreme Court was whether one such investor, a New York fund that bought into Argentinian bonds which were subsequently defaulted, could enforce its judgment against assets of the Argentinian state in the United Kingdom. [read post]